ML20137L866
Text
_ __
hhhS r
f0b BEP 3 0 992 Mr. Alan Roberts, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Material Safety, RSPA Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Roberts:
As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently conducting a rulemaking which, among other requirements, would mandate the use of a uniform manifest for transfers of low-level radioactive waste (LLW).
This manifest is intended not only to capture NRC information needs but also to meet the Department of Transportation's (001's) requirements for shipping papers.
In your July 19, 1991 letter, in response to our request, you concurred with our notice of proposed rulemaking and had expressed the opinion that our proposed manifest and instructions would satisfy 00T shipping paper requirements.
On May 12, 1992, we provided you with the proposed rulemaking package as published (Enclosure 1).
l The purpose of this letter is threefold: (1) to seek an interpretation of the D0T's requirements for shipping papers applicable to radioactive materials as a result of public comments, (2) to request DOT's participation in an interactive meeting with low-level radioactive waste shippers and other j
interested parties related to the public comments, and (3) to solicit an appraisal of DOT's schedule for finalizing your regulations which were proposed in the Federal Register in November 1989.
One major feature of our manifest involves the separation of D0T and NRC information needs onto different manifest forms (i.e., NRC Forms 540 and 541).
Form 540 was developed to contain the information to meet D0T requirements.
One drawback to this approach was that it led to some duplication of reporting, most significantly with regard to the listing of specific nuclide identities and activities.
Several public commenters have focussed on the i
burden of this duplicative reporting and have questioned why currently 1
available manifest forms, specifically those required by current LLW disposal facility operators, are not satisfactory to meet DOT requirements (Enclosure 2 contains relevant comments).
In considering our response to these comments, j
we are attempting to determine if there are acceptable alternative approaches to minimize reporting burdens.
On this matter, our understanding is that 00T regulations require that all DOT shipping paper information be provided before any additional non-DOT required information. Thus, although the identity / activity of individual nuclides is reported on our Form 541, it is also needed on Form 540.
9704070332 970327 PDR PR 20 60FR15649 PDR g
a SEP 5 o 19g2 The NRC would like to explore, with DOT, the viable options which could
. streamline reporting, minimize duplication, and minimize disruption to an existing system.
Such an effort would be in keeping with President Bush's January 1992 memorandum to the NRC and other agencies, in which the President stated that, "It is... essential that (we) work together to streamline the regulatory process and ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation" (Enclosure 3).
One option to accomplish this goal with regard to manifest reporting would be for the NRC and D0T to merge certain secondary information requirements when this would not diminish activities related to D0T's transportation safety responsibilities. We have been told that this is effectively being accomplished through existing practices on shipping papers which provide the DOT shipping paper information (e.g., proper shipping name, UN identification number) and emergency response information on the first page, and list the detailed radionuclide information on following pages, but commingled with required NRC information.
For example, existing practice may summarize radionuclide material as " mixed fission products" with a specified total activity, but provide detailed radionuclide listings on following pages.
It has been pointed out to us, in fact, that shipment manifest training courses use such manifests as a teaching tool.
Thus, I am requesting DOT's views on what flexibility your regulations may have in the presentation of various required items of shipping paper information.
In any case, if the current practice is not viable for safety reasons, we need to make this requirement clear to licensees and consider necessary corrective actions to address the current situation. We believe that an interpretation of D0T regulations relative to various existing practices needs to be made before we can finalize our rule.
On a related matter, we have also been requested by the LLW Forum (an association of representatives of States and Compacts to foster low-level radioactive waste disposal) to sponsor an interactive meeting with interested parties to discuss ccmments and provide regulatory interpretations (see comment number 2 of Ei. closure 2). DOT participation in such a meeting would be extremely useful and informative. Therefore, I am requesting DOT's participation. Certainly, we would work together with your staff to determine what options are viable from a regulatory viewpoint before this meeting is scheduled.
Finally, you are probably aware that the proposed Form 540 and instructions were based on proposed DOT regulations which included the changes proposed in your Federal Register Notice of November 14, 1989 (54 FR 47454).
Because our final forms must be based on final regulations, I would appreciate it if you could provide your current schedule for finalizing your proposed rule.
In closing, we appreciate the support that D0T has already provided in the development of our proposed rule. Resolution of the above issues is a vital next step in NRC's rulemaking process. We hope that you can place a high
i 3
GEP 3 019g7 1
priority in helping us resolve these stated issues. Mark Haisfield of my i
staff will be coordinating NRC's interactions with DOT.
Your staff can reach r
him at (301) 492-3877.
I can be reached at (301) 492-3700.
3 i
Sincerely, i
ORIGIRAL SIGMED BY i
I Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
- 1. Proposed Rule Package
- 2. Relevant Public Comments
- 3. President Bush's January 28, 1992 Memorandum l
Distribution:
Subj/ Circ /Chron.
RES: Beckjord, Heltemes, Morris, Costanzi, Silberberg, Ott, Haisfield NMSS: Bangart WMB Rdg/ Circ B:\\ DOTLTR.MH i
k
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES DRA:WMB DRA:WMB DRA:WMB NMSS D
- Haisfield *0tt
- Silberberg *Bangart Cos a
Morr 09/22/92 09/22/92 09/22/92 09/22/92 09/2W92 09/2$/92
[j' H R
RESh mes Beckjord E v0 92 09Ac/92
- T *****************************************************
ii
f;
~
r e,.
3 pr ority in helping us resolve these stated issues. Mark Haisfield of my sta f will be coordinating NRC's interactions with DOT.
Your staff can reach him t (301) 492-3877.
I can be reached at (301) 492-3700.
Sincerely, Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
- 1. Proposed Rule Package
- 2. 'Relevent Public Comments
- 3. President Bush's January
'1992 Memorandum
{
l Distribution:
l Subj/ Circ /Chron RES: Beckjord, Heltemes, Morris, Costan
, Silberberg, Ott, Haisfield NHSS: Bangart WMB Rdg/ Circ B:\\ DPTLlR.MH A r. f 0.
DRA:WMB /g//. glhWMB DRA:Ml4 NHS$/X/ DRA DRA Haisfield m W Silberberg Ban (Wt' Costan i Morris 099)/92 09/)) 92 09g]S2 09g92 09/ /92 09/ /92 RES RES Heltemes Beckjord 09/ /92 09/ /92 I
l I
1